Facts
A. LLP, an internationally active law firm headquartered in the United States, and B., a lawyer residing in Germany, concluded an agreement on July 1, 2008 to integrate B.'s German law firm C. into the A. LLP firm. This agreement provided for annual base amounts to be paid to B., the payment of which was subject to certain conditions.
B. subsequently initiated two arbitration proceedings against A. LLP, in which he demanded the payment of the difference between the contractually assured base amounts and the actual payments made for the years 2009/2010 and 2011/2012. The first arbitral tribunal, seated in Frankfurt a.M., dismissed the claim for 2009/2010 because B. had not fulfilled the contractual requirements. The second arbitral tribunal, seated in Zurich, partially upheld the claim for 2011/2012 and ordered A. LLP to pay a partial amount.
Considerations
A. LLP filed a complaint against the award of the second arbitral tribunal, arguing that it had violated the procedural public policy by disregarding the res judicata effect of the first arbitral award.
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. It stated that the res judicata effect of a foreign arbitral award in Switzerland is to be assessed according to the same principles as the res judicata effect of a foreign court judgment. The res judicata effect extends only to the operative part of the…